Creating Cooperation in Discovery: Musings on Building Trust
Where parties cooperate, discovery disputes are limited, narrowed and, sometimes, even eliminated. Where parties do not cooperate, there are more disputes, they are uglier, and the costs escalate.
April 09, 2018 at 02:30 PM
7 minute read
Since well before the Sedona Conference published its Cooperation Proclamation, it was well-known that cooperation between requesting and responding parties was crucial to an efficient and cost effective discovery process. Where parties cooperate, discovery disputes are limited, narrowed and, sometimes, even eliminated. Where parties do not cooperate, there are more disputes, they are uglier, and the costs escalate. This ideal of cooperation has been incorporated into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 1 requires the parties to construe, administer and employ the rules “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of an action. The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 1, noting that “most lawyers and parties cooperate to achieve these ends,” goes on to state that “[e]ffective advocacy is consistent with—and indeed depends upon—cooperative and proportional use of procedure.” (emphasis supplied). The question then is not whether cooperation is good, but rather how parties and the court can encourage and enable cooperation, especially where the parties and counsel are aggressively antagonistic.
The most important factor in generating cooperation in discovery is building trust between opposing counsel. Without trust that the opposing counsel will act in good faith, reasonably and fairly, counsel will be glacially slow to reach agreements, which will be drawn narrowly and excruciatingly documented. Without trust, counsel will be afraid to extend any courtesy, fearing (or expecting) that it will not be reciprocated. Without trust, counsel fear that any slip or any concession in discovery will be converted into a weapon to be used to undermine a client's substantive case and leverage settlement or dismissal.
The good news is that trust can be built between opposing counsel. Even where parties hate each other and the cases are large, emotional and “bet the company” matters, counsel can still cooperate and can trust each other. This article discusses ways that parties and the court can generate trust and build a more cooperative working relationship.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhen Blood Is Not Thicker Than Water: Long-Term Foster Parents May Get Preference for Adoption
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholders Christina M. Carroll and A. Michael Pratt have entered appearances for the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, Wendy Spicher in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 13 in Texas Northern District Court by Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders; Ashcroft Sutton Reyes; and Locke Lord on behalf of TMX Finance Corporate Services, seeks to challenge the secretary’s ongoing attempt to regulate commercial lending activity outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The suit furthers contends that the secretary issued an investigative subpoena to TMX for potential violations of the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law and the Consumer Discount Company Act despite TMX's business activities not being governed by such. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey, is 3:24-cv-02054, TMX Finance Corporate Services Inc v. Spicher.
Who Got The Work
Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Who Got The Work
Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250